Ferguson Protesters React to Michael Brown Robbery Footage

|

Originally published on August 15th, 2014. Original text below:

This morning, Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson revealed security footage showing that Michael Brown, the 18-year-old shot and killed by police officers in Ferguson, MO, may have committed a "strong arm" robbery against a convenience store owner. The chief later acknowledged that the officer who shot Brown was not aware of the robbery at the time of the incident. 

Reason TV talked with protesters in front of a burned-out QuikTrip that looters destroyed earlier this week. Most saw little reason that the new information should dampen their outrage towards the police, and some even justified the destruction of private property as necessary and effective in garnering attention for their cause

Approximately 2:30 minutes.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller and Paul Detrick. Music by Chris Zabriskie

NEXT: Ed Krayewski Talking Ferguson, Police Reform on the Tyler Nixon Show

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. The police would never ever file bogus charges against people complaining about the police, no sirree.

      1. He also had a previous outstanding warrant.

    2. And how exactly does this relate to the issue of the police arming and conducting themselves like they were performing a counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan?

        1. So now the US has invaded Fghanistan!? Does it ever end?

          1. No one invades the realm of the Yog-Sothoth and the Old Ones.

            1. Cthulhu Ryl’yeh Wagh Nah’gle Ftaghn!

            2. The mind-blasting, sanity shredding spectacle of an Abdul Al-Sharpton speaking…

          2. “Ferganistan”

            I like it.

        2. The incident that set off the riots and the response by law enforcement are separate issues. The former wasn’t caused by a cop in paramilitary gear and AR15.

      1. It doesn’t. It relates to the issue of the American media and American leftists mindlessly parroting an argument that Michael Brown was assassinated from behind for the crime of being black.

        Leftists are using this to engage in racist agitation and inflame racial divides, so the fact that their narrative is increasingly becoming an obvious lie is certainly relevant to the issue as a whole.

        1. I feel what you’re saying Irish, but it can’t be ignored that it’s also constantly being used, in other venues, as a feint to distract from the issue of the overly-militarized response of the police.

          1. I agree. The problem is that smart people need to be able to hold two ideas in their heads at the same time:

            1. It is increasingly apparent that Michael Brown and his buddy were scumbags. Did the police officer have cause to shoot Brown? I don’t know yet, which is why I’m waiting for more evidence. However, it’s very possible that Brown, a 6′ 4″ 300 pound man, was charging a cop after having previously assaulted him. If someone did that to a private citizen who shot him, I would defend the private citizen’s right to defend himself in a situation where he clearly felt in imminent danger of serious injury and possibly death. If that’s what happened in this instance, then why shouldn’t I give the cop they same benefit of self-defense?

            2. Even though *this particular instance* may be an example of justified self-defense, Michael Brown’s death is a flash point for a host of other legitimate complaints in that community and around the country. As a result, allowing this to become about race is moronic because there are a host of examples of white men being brutalized and murdered by cops as well (Eric Garner/Kelly Thomas). This is an issue of national police brutality and militarization, and the idiotic leftist desire to make it about race has done everyone a disservice.

            1. Good summary. Unfortunately, all of the legit points here will be consumed by the twin engines of partisanship and stupidity.

            2. The problem with Ferguson isn’t even the Brown shooting. It’s the fact that the Ferguson PD operated under the assumption that they don’t have a responsibility to hold themselves accountable to the community they’re supposed to serve. I’m at the point now where I’m starting to be persuaded that it was indeed a “good shoot”, but the problem is that the police have at every juncture acted as if the peasants have no right to inquire as to the killing of one of their number by the king’s men.

              They’ve escalated the situation every chance they could, for no good reason. Shit, the looting didn’t even begin for real until the cops decided that they should pull out the SWAT gear in order to place the peaceful protestors in enfilade. Shooting notwithstanding, everything about this was preventable.

              1. Brilliantly put.

            3. I agree the lefts obsession with framing police misconduct in terms of racism is incomplete, but 1. race is behind some misconduct 2. If race is the framing that gets the before ignored issues into the light then it seems better than the alternative.

              1. I disagree for two reasons.

                First, framing it as a race issue makes the problem one of having the right people in office and in the police department rather than the police tactics themselves, including the ‘milirarization’ of said police.

                Secondly, framing it as a race issue initiates a tribalism sequence where white people come to see the issue as a black one (which is what the race baiters are saying so I’m not blaming whitey here). Which quickly devolves into black = crime. So that white people, who are a majority almost everwhere think that police abuse isn’t an issue that directly affects them and therefor ending that abuse becomes a secondary or tertiary issue at best.

                Really, making it a race issue serves the status quo on all sides. It riles up black people, and likely increases their turnout for democrats in November and it riles up white people and increases their turnout. And it increases reflexive support for our cops diffusing any real reforms.

                1. I don’t really disagree with the potential issues you describe, but I’m not sure I see any way of getting the broader issues on the national table, and given it’s fraught with the complications you mention it seems better than the entire thing being ignored

            4. I just realized Eric Garner is black. Who was the white guy the cops killed recently?

              Well here’s an unarmed white teenager who got shot to death by a black cop.

              So use that example instead of Eric Garner.

      2. Incidentally, the left’s constant obsession with racist narratives where none exist (cough, George Zimmerman) is setting race relations in this country back 40 years.

        Pointing out their idiocy and unwillingness to listen to facts is therefore very important if we don’t want to witness the return of racist lynch mobs, institutionalized hate crimes, and constant race rioting.

        Furthermore, the obsession with race in this instance is causing what should be a united front against police militarization to Balkanize along tribal grounds. Surprisingly, a lot of white people who have serious concerns about these issues don’t want to align themselves with people who are going to go off on rants every five minutes about the vile white devil who is solely at fault for all racial problems.

        Painting these guys as angelic beings who were simply too good for the evil white man’s world was always moronic and the left deserves to get viciously mocked for being a blatantly racist political movement that’s run by people so moronic and delusional that they’ve somehow managed to convince themselves they’re opposed to bigotry.

        1. There is good money in race baiting.

          /AS

            1. Yeah. The same hustlers have been slinging this crap at least since the 80s, and it’s always been a paying gig with a willing media ready to deliver to a tireless audience of supposedly aggrieved victims and hand-wringing liberals.

        2. I’d wage that they were better 40 years ago

        3. setting race relations in this country back 40 years

          Outside of the expected racist shithole race relations were much better 40 years ago then they are now.

          1. Oh, I expect you’ll be moving to Roxbury shortly to send your kids to Madison Park High, located on beautiful Malcolm X Blvd?

            You won’t? Well, your a fucking racist shitstain, aren’t you!

            1. *you’re

  1. Are these new reactions?

    1. I think this was shown earlier in the week.

      1. Hence the “Originally published on August 15th, 2014.” line. You haven’t noticed the weekend reruns around here?

        1. I probably should have included a sarcasm tag. I was basically indirectly writing another, “Oh, goody. Another video repeat thread” comment.

          1. Admit it, this is just another, rather extreme, Ted S. moment.

            1. So you like the constant weekend repeats? 😉

              I will say that at least they’re putting up posts that don’t have the original comments.

              1. That was my fear when I saw it. As I recall that particular thread got a little derp-y.

              2. So you like the constant weekend repeats?

                They need to just put up a weekend version of the Mourning Lynx and let all hell break loose there.

          2. LIES!

  2. some even justified the destruction of private property as necessary and effective in garnering attention for their cause

    “We’re tired of police assuming that black men are violent criminals, so we’re going to commit some violent crimes to prove them wrong! Oh, wait….”

    1. ^^Doubleplus this

  3. At the time of the Rodney King riots, I was working for a small company, and one of our retailers was a black-owned store in LA. It was destroyed in the riots and (AFAIK) never rebuilt. Way to “garner attention for your cause,” dudes!

    1. Not owned by a Korean then.

  4. Experimental SpaceX rocket self-detonates over Texas

    A small rung on the long ladder to Mars broke Friday, when a rocket test in Texas ended in a midair ball of fire.

    Debris from the SpaceX F9R rained down from the flames onto an open field outside of McGregor.

    The rocket self-destructed as a safety measure — a common practice in the aerospace industry in unmanned craft. A hitch in the F9R test vehicle turned up during launch, and the “flight termination system automatically terminated the mission,” SpaceX said in a statement.

    “There were no injuries or near-injuries.”

    Not sure what a “near-injury” is, though? I was “nearly injured” when a rocket blew up several thousand miles away. Can I sue for being “nearly injured”?

    1. On Slashdot this was described as “a rapid unscheduled disassembly.”

    2. I believe a “near-injury” is something that went wrong and could have hurt someone, but by the grace of God, didn’t. Nevertheless, the engineers still have to go back to the drawing board and examine what happened so that it doesn’t happen again.

    3. I’m surprised that the RSO is now a computer. A human being used to have to push the destruct button.

      1. I, for one, welcome our new robot button pushers.

        1. Just like ATM machines. Now, this poor guy is out of a job.

    4. Where’s the Gov/NASA rep to wail about free-market failure?

  5. It’s about time Reason finally had a thread about the Michael Brown killing. I was wondering when we were finally going to pay some attention to this woefully neglected and most important story in the world.

    1. In other news, rock legend, Lou Reed is rumored to have died.

      1. Did they ever do a tribute thread to Kasey Kasim?

    2. Now, if only we’d finally get some coverage on how the millennials are secretly libertarian…

  6. Meg Ryan and John Mellencamp have ended their relationship after three years of dating, a report says.

    The two split “a couple of weeks ago,” one of Mellencamp’s friends told Closer Weekly, which was the first to report the news.

    YES! *fist pump* She’s back on the market!

    1. Way to aim for the middle.

      1. Look, youngster…

        While I admit that Meg ain’t what she used to be, she’s been on my celebrity waiver list for 21 years. It’s about loyalty, my friend.

        When 52 years you reach, look as good you will not.

  7. OT: SpaceX unmanned Falcon9 Reusable gets a case of…explosions.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/s…..94021.html

      1. Around here he’s known as Cyto the Slow.

      2. Oh har har. You beat me.

  8. It relates to the issue of the American media and American leftists mindlessly parroting an argument that Michael Brown was assassinated from behind for the crime of being black.

    Based on the coverage I have seen, MSNBC is still desperately clinging to the “Cops are HEROES” narrative. They cannot bring themselves to question the supremacy of the State and its agents.

  9. ENB wrote a solid article in favor of legalized prostitution at Sullivan’s site, but makes at least one logical fallacy.

    Last night, a close friend told me he had been reading my posts about decriminalizing sex work. “I’m sympathetic,” he said, “and I want to agree with you. But I just keep thinking, ‘what if it were my daughter?’ That’s, like, every father’s worst nightmare.”

    My friend doesn’t have a daughter, to be clear. He’s also one of the most sexually liberal people I know. But while his attitude does discourage me, it doesn’t surprise me. This is the sexist culture we live in?one where a man who I know has had sex with at least three different women in the past week can literally imagine nothing worse for his hypothetical daughter than getting paid to have sex.

    Your mistake was assuming that ‘sexually liberal’ means he doesn’t want to control other peoples’ sex lives. As is generally the case with progressive arguments ‘sexually liberal’ people are just horribly selfish and don’t want the government to stop them from doing what they want to do, but the government should definitely stop what you want to do, if it makes them feel icky.

    Sort of like leftists against police militarization who would have applauded if drones killed everyone at Bundy Ranch.

    Progs are just socons with hemp necklaces and a porn collection.

    1. All the socons I know have porn collections. They’re just ashamed of them.

      1. Progs are just socons with hemp necklaces and a publicly displayed porn collections.

      2. Shame and guilt are natural human emotions. These feelings should not be suppressed!

        1. Shame and guilt are natural human emotions. These feelings should not be suppressed!

          If you don’t hurt anyone, there is nothing to feel guilty about, is there, Eddie?

        2. They shouldn’t be suppressed, but they should be indulged either. This guy expresses it eloquently.

          1. Of course, guilt isn’t supposed to be indulged and nurtured, it’s supposed to be a prompting toward repentance. Wallowing in guilt is basically despair.

            1. And I was parodying the usual line about sexual feelings being natural, etc. They are, but so are guilt and shame! And both have to be used in the appropriate context.

            2. Wallowing in guilt is basically despair Catholicism.

              🙂

              1. The quarrel between Catholics and others is that Catholics feel guilty about certain things, and others feel guilty about certain *other* things (like not recycling, or being “judgmental”).

                1. As far as I understood it, Catholics feel guilt about EVERYTHING.

                  1. Here’s some things Catholic are *not* required to feel guilty about:

                    Failure to recycle

                    Eating juicy, dripping haunches of meat (outside of fast periods)

                    Describing a sexually-confused man as a man instead of as a woman and vice versa

                    Standing up when pissing

                    Hunting lions and rhinos in nature preserves

                    Fixing your husband a sandwich

                    So progs can keep their primitive tabus.

                    1. I think you spelled “sammich” wrong there, G.K.C. 🙂

                      And seriously, who would ever feel guilty about gunning down a Rhino?

                    2. As to lions, meet Kendall Jones and her critics:

                      http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.1850383

                    1. Hmmm, this seems familiar:

                      “The idea is sometimes linked to the Jewish concept of repentance or Teshuva. Essentially, this type of remorse is considered the first step toward repentance from taking a wrong action. From this perspective, Teshuva is considered to be a form of positive guilt, as the individual recognizes the error of the action and is therefore ready to make atonement for the wrongful act.”

            3. Wallowing in guilt is basically despair.

              Yes. Though, some people also get off on feelings of martyrdom and false humility, which is just as bad. For them “O woe is me!” is basically “O pay attention to me!”

              1. It’s more like a signal, like pain in the physical body. The pain from a physical wound could prompt you or I to say, “I better drop by the doctor’s and get that looked at.” The pain of guilt should prompt you or I to say, “I better get that looked at – maybe I should make things up with that guy I called a [bleep].”

                1. “The pain of guilt should prompt you or I to say, “I better get that looked at ”

                  Time to talk to the Bishop, right?

                  1. I’m probably going to feel guilty about this, but…

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

                    1. Eddie, insulting Bo is nothing to feel guilt over. He deserves all that he gets. Besides…

                      It’s what Jesus would do.

                    2. It’s what Montana Old Guy Jesus would do, that’s for sure.

                    3. No, you see Bo, it was a funny way of pointing out that you are SUCH AN ASSHOLE, that even Jesus Christ himself would make sport of you and not feel guilty about it.

                      Sorry I needed to explain. I know your autism makes certain concepts difficult.

                    4. What’s more stunning in this unhinged comment, the irony or lack if self awareness? It’s close…

                    5. I myself don’t endorse the comment, because Christ doesn’t “make sport” of people.

                      My mockery is aimed mainly at showing that I haven’t been silenced by your comments and accusations, and indeed that I hold these comments and accusations in low regard.

                      But as to you personally, I bet outside the Internet context you’re really nice!

                    6. Good lord, is that some word for word advice from your priest? Hilarious

                    7. Again, it’s too bad so many people just see a blank space where your clever comment was.

                    8. I bet your wrong.

                    9. I’m probably going to feel guilty about this, but…

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

                      Where did you get that video of Harry Reid?

        3. It’s of course not shame and guilt generally that are silly, it’s shame and guilt over consensual adult sexual relations that are. No ones suggesting people hurting others shouldn’t feel both

            1. Hi Eddie!

              1. You couldn’t even be bothered to research YouTube and find that there’s a braying donkey named Eddie?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUktuuWltHc

                You missed an opportunity for a “you’re another” insult, which would have been up your alley.

                1. I don’t click on your dodge links Eddie, so they’re really just self pleasuring for you (yikes, guess you really will have to drop by your Bishop’s)

                  1. Ooh, it’s too bad so many people have you filtered, they miss out on the opportunity to see your clever remarks!

                    1. (And the links are for the benefit of third-parties who read our discussions, not for your benefit)

                    2. Nobody here likes you!!!

                    3. The thing is, getting on the good side, or at least the tolerant, non-blocking side, of the H&R people involves very little effort – avoid obsessive nitpicking, high school girlish attacks on others, and a few other points of social decorum which, I would presume, you practice in meatspace.

                    4. Or just agree with the very vocal conservative contingent here

                    5. I pity the people who were able to see that comment – oh, my eyes!

                    6. You used a hyphen when you should have used a semi-colon.

                      You’re a backstabbing bitch, G.K.C! You stole my boyfriend!

                      *poops in clear view of the commentariat*

                      Did that about cover it?

                    7. Basically. And I’m sorry about your boyfriend. 🙂

                    8. Bo Cara Esq.|8.23.14 @ 5:43PM|#

                      Nobody here likes you!!

                      Talking to yourself again Bo?

                      Well, at least you’re right this time.

                    9. Um, let me explain, see, well, actually, let me not waste my time…

                    10. Does anyone here like anyone else?

    2. Your pop caught you smoking and he said “no way”

      That hypocrite smokes two packs a day

      To be fair, the Beasties were simply yanking our chain and were embarrassed at the popularity of their song.

      But there are still people who take this principle seriously – “smoking must be OK because Dad smokes, so I can safely ignore his warnings not to be a smoker like him!”

      1. To be fair, the Beasties were simply yanking our chain and were embarrassed at the popularity of their song.

        That’s what they said later. Do you believe it? I didn’t see their first tour (I believe they opened for Run DMC) but I did hear about them all pouring beer down a slip and slide and taking a dive. I think they changed a lot and tried to reshape their past.

        1. HM, any ideas of why the Beasties got more mature?

            1. I first read this as “Vagina Medicine”.

              Which, yeah, will make boys more mature.

    3. ENB wrote a solid article in favor of legalized prostitution at Sullivan’s site, but makes at least one logical fallacy.

      Only one? She’s improving.

  10. OT: An article about Ferguson and some Reason shout-outs

    http://www.rogerebert.com/far-…..s-shrugged

    1. From the comments:

      Stellaa snley ? 6 days ago
      Why do Libertarians always complain that they are misunderstood? The degeneration of our public and urban policies is due to the virus of Libertarianism, the notion that public policy and social justice are anathema to the boyish notions of individualism.

      It’s those powerful libertarians that are to blame.

      1. …”public policy and social justice”…

        Uh, sure, and green up sandal five, too!

      2. Remember, libertarians are both comically irrelevant and powerless because there’s never been a libertarian country and have simultaneously infiltrated every level of government and poisoned it without our greed and selfish ideology.

        Thus it makes perfect sense that libertarian ideology dominates every urban environment where blacks live in poverty and fear of a brutal police force.

        1. Now I’m imagining a liberal utopian society, with a McCarthy-esque head of security putting people on trial and demanding to know if they’re Libertarians.

          “Do you think for youself?!”

          “Do you value independence?!”

          “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Libertarian?!”

          Then prison or death, regardless of the answer. This is a PROGRESSIVE uptoia, after all. Suspicion equals guilt.

        2. All those generations of urban Democrat leaders have been libertarians all along! That is a level of shapeshifting and disguise that even David Icke would find implausible.

    2. Why does Roger Ebert.com still exist when he’s been dead for like 3 years, and why are they talking about Ferguson Missouri instead of movies?

      1. His estate is now the property of his wife, who is African-American and I guess wanted to keep her late husband’s platform.

        They still review movies, though.

        1. You know who SHOULD make a comeback?

          The Critic. Loved that show.

          1. It stinks!

      2. The wife runs it, and social issues were often covered on it when Ebert was writing it

  11. OT: This popped up on fb, Rand Paul comments on Hillary.

    http://rare.us/story/rand-paul…..-war-hawk/

    From the comments:

    RandY the Shrimp (he’s 5’2″ people!) is the #1 liar, the #1 racist and the #1 isolationist. Hillary is the right choice, she is the only choice and it’s pretty obvious misogyny and the Patriarchal system are still in place that a filthy animal sub-human white bastard like RandY paul is even given a platform to criticize his intellectual better, his MORALLY better and someone who is all around a wonderful, glowing and kind human being. Hillary HAS DEDICATED HER LIFE to helping others. Randy Paul hasn’t done A DAMN F*CKING THING FOR ANYONE, EVER, NOT EVEN F*CKING ONCE.

    I’m trying to decide if this is sarcasm.

    1. he’s 5’2″

      Is that true?

      1. According to google he’s 5’8″. Again, that makes me think this post is a joke.

      2. I googled and got 5’9″.

    2. It has to be a joke. The rest of that comment is fucking hilarious.

      I hear he’s also a raging alcoholic as well. Since when is a racist drunk midget someone whose opinion matters on anything? Why is Randy Paul being given airtime when it could be given to Hillary? To Elizabeth Warren? To Wendy Davis? To CongressWOMAN Sheila Jackson? Let these WOMEN has a little room to speak, for crying out loud. They might have something INTELLIGENT to say, rather than creepy sick lies coming from the mouth of a truly stupid and truly hideous human being. He’s really very ugly, just a unhandsome human being, no wonder he’s so twisted and evil, he was born a creepy troll! Ha! Hey Randy, I know you are reading this: SHUT YOUR MOUTH, STUPID!

      This reads like a really funny parody of ad hominem political attacks.

      1. It does, which means it’s probably real.

      2. Yea, I’m leaning that direction. I only question it because so much of peoples real political discourse these days is akin to parody.

    3. Whatever it is, it made me laugh.

    4. You know who else was below average height and championed a patriarchal system?

      1. Hitler?

        1. No no no! That’s not how this game is played. Hitler is the ONLY unacceptable answer.

      2. Napoleon, in his Napoleonic Code?

      3. Alex P. Keaton?

        1. Good answer!

    5. Ia! Ia! Hail Hil-Niggurath, the Black Clinton of the Woods, the Goat With a Thousand Drones!

    6. A grade parody. It must be so or I will lose my sanity.

  12. OT: Here’s the start of a comment on a Krugman column that got “Times pick” and 225+ recommends:

    the column still feels like a feint at the real problem: Inflation reduces the real value of money, so if you have a lot of money, then inflation is quite terrifying. THAT is the key here, and Professor Krugman didn’t hammer that nail.

    So…reduction in the value of money is only a problem for you if you have a lot of money? Because it wouldn’t be a problem if you were struggling to meet ends meet, to have your purchasing power drop? wut?

    1. The people who really get butchered by inflation are the middle class. They have money, but their money isn’t likely to be tied up in investments like rich people. Rich people don’t get hurt that badly by inflation because wealthy people often have tons of real assets that don’t depreciate in value. If you own lots of real estate, for example, the real estate retains value even as the dollar drops.

      The middle class often has a higher percentage of their money in actual savings, which means they get hit very hard by inflation.

      The poor also get killed if wages don’t rise quickly enough, which is what happened in the ’70s.

      The rich probably actually make out the best since if you own lots of stock the stock itself doesn’t get devalued, it just becomes worth more dollars but those dollars are individually worth less. So in real value stock doesn’t get hit particularly hard by inflation, and might actually be helped because soft money policies blow up the value of the stock market.

      1. In other words, Irish, you’re saying that Krugman is an idiot and doesn’t know the difference between economics and his own asshole?

        Color me surprised.

      2. The rich probably actually make out the best since if you own lots of stock the stock itself doesn’t get devalued, it just becomes worth more dollars but those dollars are individually worth less.

        The only people inflation really helps are those who have large debts–as long as their wages rise enough in relation to inflation–and institutions who lend far beyond the capital they actually possess, because the devaluation means debts get paid off quicker and there’s less of a chance of the debt collapsing the institution.

        That’s a big reason why personal and government debt has basically been on the same rocket ride since the mid-70s or so–it’s basically an attempt to perpetually devalue your debt. The problem emerges when debt issuance begins to outstrip inflation’s ability to devalue the currency. It also favors those who entered the market sooner while punishing savers and those who had the misfortune to not be born when prices were low.

        Hence, why Krugman is having severe allergic reactions to even the hint of deflation. He knows damn well his buddies in the government and financial sectors will get hosed if it happens.

    2. The ability to save money is privilege, mind you check it.

      And moreover, saving money means a poor person somewhere can’t have it. Since that’s totally the way it works.

  13. Addicting Info reports on Huey P. Newton gun club’s open-carry demonstration in Ferguson

    I decided to post a few comments pointing out that gun control harms blacks far more than whites and used the Shaneen Allen case as a prime example. Some responses:

    Vikki Schmitt ? Top Commenter
    Oh yes, those terrible pesky Libs and Progressives, if Obama isnt to blame then they certainly are, right? Yeah, sure. NOT.

    I respond:

    so you don’t think Shaneen Allen should be in jail for carrying firearm into New Jersey?

    Her response:

    Vikki Schmitt ? Top Commenter
    Who are you trying to kid here? Spin your anti-Lib/Progressive rightie schpiel somewhere else. You couldnt care less about my gun rights let alone any black person’s rights of any kind. Stop trying to sound like you do.

    But here’s the best response:

    Donald Zuke ? Top Commenter ? Works at Local union 1180 peach bottom nuclear plant
    I 2nd what Vikki said your a little crybaby punk that needs to get stomped. Now go run back to your little group of fucking whiners on the right. And don’t forget to swallow for your boyfriend.

    Union thug SMASH!

    1. Isn’t it charming how quickly Progs turn virulently homophobic when their talking points are challenged?

      Someone should clue Tony in how his compatriots feel about his ‘lifestyle’.

      1. Eh, I think it had to do more with the tendency of people to try and guess what would make the insultee most upset when insulting them, so progs might insult conservatives whom they imagine as homophobes by calling them gay, much like conservatives love calling progs racist.

        1. Except that ‘don’t forget to swallow for your boyfriend’ isn’t like calling someone a racist, it’s like calling someone a ‘nigger’ or ‘faggot.’

          Calling someone a homophobic slur is different than saying somebody is racist.

          1. Eh, I don’t get that at all.

            1. Calling someone a racist isn’t implicitly bigoted, the way trotting out homophobic slurs is. The word “racist” is about a person’s attitudes, not their race/sex/religion.

              1. Being a racist is loathesome for progressives and progressives imagine being gay is loathesome to conservatives, and that’s why both call each other that so much. The progressive is not denigrating gays when they do that, they think they are insulting the conservative. Likewise the conservative who calls progs racist is often someone who thinks racism is overblown himself, but he knows or thinks that progs think it not so.

            2. Are you fucking kidding me, Bo?

              I 2nd what Vikki said your a little crybaby punk that needs to get stomped. Now go run back to your little group of fucking whiners on the right. And don’t forget to swallow for your boyfriend.

              If he’d said ‘you need to get curb-stomped, faggot’ the content of this post would be identical, it just would have been less needlessly wordy.

              1. Spare yourself the trouble, Irish. Bo is in his Blue Tulpa undies today.

              2. I think the first sentence is your usual crude physical threat/insult and the third, like the second is doing different work altogether.

                I mean, do you think with the second sentence he thinks he’s insulting whiners or that he imagines the insultee would be upset to be considered one?

                1. But these are supposed to be the enlightened ones. I call people “cocksucker” a lot, but I make no pretense at being particularly PC. These people do and it’s disturbing to hear dog whistles like that being played by people who’d jump on anyone for saying something similar.

                  1. Well, this is just to admit you’re holding them to a higher standard (because they claim one to be sure, but still).

                    1. Higher than what? Their own standard?

                    2. I mean, if standards are good then double standards must be like, twice as good, right? It would explain why so many among the morally elite display them.

                    3. If you want to accuse them of hypocrisy I guess it works, but the claim was that they were exhibiting homophobia themselves.

                    4. Gee what’s homophobic about calling an opponent a queer.

                      By that standard, calling your opponents niggers means that you’re not a racist, right?

                    5. Yes, the terms ‘queer’ and ‘nigger’ carry no more or less baggage than stating that someone is gay or black.

                      I’ll try to explain this to you using an example close to your own: if you were arguing with a Klansman, calling him black would be an insult you would think would really get his goat, agreed? Of course you wouldn’t think being black is a bad thing, but you’d guess he would.

                    6. Non autistic people would see a statement such as “Bo you’re acting like a nigger” as evidence of racism on the part of the person making the statement whether or not you were a black person.

                    7. Non autistic people would also have gotten the point of my first sentence directly above this comment of yours.

                    8. That’s mighty white of you, Bo.

                      (By your standards that’s not a bigoted statement at all.)

    2. Do you go to the weasel’s Facebook page? Doesn’t look like he could stomp anyone.

    3. I 2nd what Vikki said your a little crybaby punk that needs to get stomped. Now go run back to your little group of fucking whiners on the right. And don’t forget to swallow for your boyfriend.

      Wow, that is one homophobic progressive.

    4. ..little crybaby punk that needs to get stomped.

      Progressives…the party of peace. That about sums up their “ideology”, if you could call it such.

    5. Another comment on the article:

      Like I been saying all along, “What’s gonna happen when a group of Blacks walk into a resturant or store armed to the teeth as Whites are doing now”? Whites gonna be screaming robbery, rape and bloody murder to the top of their lungs. You see folks, WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER”.

      …Why would you proudly point out something you’ve been “saying all along,” when there are no reports of such a thing actually happening?

      The way people can so casually demonize their political opponents is amazing and hilarious. This Vikki woman knows you like seeing black people oppressed, because you’re a “Bagger.”

  14. Love this: Florida man breaks up ‘Pay if Forward’ line at Starbucks, defends himself on blog

    On Wednesday, a reported 378 people “paid it forward” at a St. Petersburg Starbucks by buying the drink of the customer next in line.

    Regardless of whether people in the line knew they were part of a “Pay It Forward” chain, each of those 378 purchases were true acts of kindness.

    What is not an act of kindness is what is happening today at the same Starbucks, where customers are being told that they had had their drink paid for and then asked would they like to pay for the drink of the person next in line.

    That’s not generosity, that’s guilt.

    When a new “Pay It Forward” chain started today, I decided to put an end to it. Not because I am against paying it forward, but because whatever is going on Starbucks is not paying it forward. It may even be a nice thing, but it’s the charitable concept “Pay It Forward” is supposed to be about.

    So, yes, I drove to the Starbucks, purchased two Venti Mocha Frappuccinos (one for me and my wife) and, even though someone in front of me had paid for one of my drinks, I declined the barista’s suggestion to pay for the drink of the person next in line.

    Chain broken.

    P.S. I gave the baristas a $100 tip just to prove that I am not a 100% grinch.

    P.P.S. The only concept worse than a faux act of generosity, is the local media hyping it.

    1. I think I know that guy… Although that doesn’t quite narrow it down.

    2. A “pay it forward” line? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while.

      1. It sounds an awful lot like a “Pay for it yourself” line. Only a little bit out of step.

        1. That’s what kills me about this trend. I say “trend” because I think I’ve now heard 3 or 4 stories about this type of thing on the radio, always at a Starbucks.

          The first person to start the “chain” is performing an act of charity. After that it’s just introducing inefficiencies and perverse incentives. What if I want a small drip coffee and the person behind me wants a triple mocha caramel latte milkshake? Now I’m guilted into paying $5 for my coffee and leave feeling slightly more angry at humanity in general. That is not how charity is supposed to work.

          1. Did they dump buckets of ice on themselves too?

  15. OT: the supposed author of the complaint against Rick Perry says some shit

    http://www.politico.com/magazi….._jbPtm9LTr

    1. “Lehmberg’s bottle of vodka was as much a gift to Texas Republicans as Eliot Spitzer’s libido was to Wall Street. Each of those officials handed their political enemies the instrument of their own destruction.”

      Good thing Spitzer refused to resign, and that the people pressing him to resign were indicted!

      1. Oh, and when Spitzer got caught, did he throw his weight around with the cops and try to intimidate them into dropping the charges?

      2. Eddie, you’re a big Perry fan aren’t you?

        1. Assuming for the purpose of argument that you’re interested in the truth, I was against Perry because he attacked Ron Paul.

          Somehow, though, I don’t think this fact will penetrate your skull, jackass.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srkarrl2EaU

        2. This shouldn’t have to be said but criticizing a drunken lunatic who tries to manipulate police officers into releasing her after a DUI and then uses the court systems to punish her political opponents is not the same thing as approving of her victims.

          For example: If someone punched you in the face, my decision to criticize them for committing assault should not be construed as a positive statement about you.

          1. Cognitive. Fucking. Dissonance.

          2. It’s a weak case to be sure, but Eddie seems really animated by it.

            1. First, Bo, let me say I’m much nicer to you behind your back than I am to your face.

              Second, listen to your itty-bitty bray!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmQrNEAr54

              1. TorqBomada doesn’t see a problem with corrupting the criminal justice system to punish SoConnzz.

                It’s a minor evil serving a higher good to him. Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs after all.

                1. What in the world are you even talking about at this point?

                  1. Your the torquemada of reason.com, self appointed to root out conservative heresy from libertopia.

                    Hence, I christen you Torqbomada

                    1. “Your the torquemada of reason.com, self appointed to root out conservative heresy from libertopia.”

                      See Irish, this is what I was talking about in our discussion.

                      VG: Hmm, this guy hates socons, and Torqmada is a socon archetype, so I know, I’ll call him that, boy will that get a rise out of him!

                    2. Dude, everyone here knows that you have a serious SoCon obsession, which extends to ‘exposing’ those that you think are socons, and thereby infecting (or whatever) this site.

                    3. I’m curious, other than Eddie can you site one instance of me accusing someone here of being a socon? I can save you some time, you can’t, because I have not.

                      I have said some people are likely conservatives or conservative leaning and seem either sympathetic to socons and/or easily get upset over criticisms of them, but of course a smart fellow like yourself can see the difference there.

                      As to my ‘socon obsession,’ it’s kind of common for libertarians to denounce ‘progressives’ and ‘socons’ with ‘a pox on both your houses’ attitudes. I like to post about socons pushing to violate the NAP. Many people here post regularly about progressives pushing to violate the NAP, are they obsessed?

                    4. I’m curious, other than Eddie can you site one instance of me accusing someone here of being a socon? I can save you some time, you can’t, because I have not.

                      This assertion is just laughable false.

                      You’ve done multiple times a day for months.

                    5. Cite one then.

                      To repeat, I have said some people are likely conservatives or conservative leaning and seem either sympathetic to socons and/or easily get upset over criticisms of them, but of course a smart fellow like yourself can see the difference there.

                      But maybe you were unable to get the distinction because your sympathies were triggered?

                    6. So you’ve never claimed or insinuated that John or Cyto were SoCons?

                      Seriously?

                    7. No, and I bet both of them would tell you that (I know Cyto would, because as he often complains I called him a NEOCON).

                    8. So you’ve never claimed or insinuated that John or Cyto were SoCons?

                      Seriously?

                    9. So you’ve never claimed or insinuated that John or Cyto were SoCons?

                      Seriously?

                    10. Oh and Torqmada (sic) is a socon archetype is a pretty huge stretch as socons are a particular part of the US political environment, that evolved in the 1970s and completely disavow torquemada, his goals and the techniques that he employed.

                      Although, your making him a socon hero does illustrate my point.

                    11. “as socons are a particular part of the US political environment, that evolved in the 1970s and completely disavow torquemada, his goals and the techniques that he employed.”

                      Oh, you are precious. Now I see why you’re smarting.

                    12. Do you think that socons were a force in US politics in say the 1950s or earlier?

                    13. Er, yes.

                    14. I mean, do you know where the term ‘fundamentalist’ comes from? Hint, it comes from a major political/cultural battle that kind of predated the 1970s.

                    15. Christian Fundamentalism as a movement was created by Christian intellectuals in the decade immediately preceding the First World War. It slowly gained traction with various Christian sect but was not an organized political block until the 1970s.

                    16. That’s an interesting claim. I’m curious, who do you think pushed to, say, pass the Butler Act and its equivalents in Oklahoma and Florida? Or the Comstock Law? Or the US equivalents of Canada’s Lord’s Day Law?

                    17. The word SoCons either has a particular meaning or it does not. The SoCons of today began with organizations like the Moral Majority, which was founded in 1979, largely as a reaction to cultural and political changes in the 1960s and 70s and advocated a basket of policies relevant to that time. I would be willing to be that the socons would be opposed to a number of policies favored by Comstock and his supporters, including general restictions on commerce, prohibition and others. Furthermore, if you have evidence of politically active groups pushing a SoCon agenda in the 1930s, 40s or 50s please provide it.

                    18. And, the SoCons of the late 70s and early 80s had traction for some of their policies beyond hard core religious christians with a larger group of traditionalists that were alarmed by escalating crime and a perceived breakdown of social order and family structure. They were never very successful with the more purely religious portions of their agenda.

                    19. Now we’re getting somewhere, because from the start I thought you were confusing the specific group Moral Majority with the longer and broader tradition of social conservatives.

                      And I have such a group for you right away: the Anti-Saloon League. Here’s a description of its founder and leader: ” Following a religious conversion, he gave up the practice of law to become a minister. In 1893, he organized the Ohio Anti-Saloon League…Russell was also the author of A Lawyer’s Examination of the Bible, which is a work of Christian apologetics that argues the evidences for the Bible’s authenticity concerning the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Russell believed that the testimony of the writers of the gospels could be tested by technical legal criteria and argued that such testimony was trustworthy.”

                      If this fellow was not a ‘social conservative’ it’s a pretty meaningless term.

                    20. And btw, socons, and this includes the Moral Majority, have little trouble with ‘restrictions on commerce’ when they disagree with what’s being commerced. See their vigorous support for anti-gambling laws, anti-pornography laws, etc.

                    21. And btw, socons, and this includes the Moral Majority, have little trouble with ‘restrictions on commerce’ when they disagree with what’s being commerced.

                      Fair enough, however, the prohibitionists of the late 19th century were much more broadly anti-capitalist, more akin to the progressive left of today than the religious right.

                    22. I’m curious, where do you get this claim that the 19th century prohibitionists of the 19th century were much more broadly anti-capitalist (especially given it was a somewhat diverse coalition of movements)?

                    23. Remember that in the 19th century the ancestors or progressivism were openly religious christians (William Jennings Bryan anyone?) as well as anti-market. The smear Social Darwinism speaks volumes of their beliefs and biases then. It was only in the early 20th century that they began to replace a belief in an active god with something else. And I contend that they retained much of the pre-modern Christian moral skepticism of markets, self interest ad commerce, along with the Christian belief in an organizing personality, they just transferred that personality form Jesus or Jehovah to government.

                    24. If you are arguing that the social conservatives of that day agreed on some things and worked together, well, sure. That happens today (see sex trafficking and in some respects pornography, allying with feminists). But they also disagreed a lot. Take the laws barring the teaching of evolution passed in some Southern states, it’s laughable to argue that opposition to evolution (which, btw, was used as a major support for eugenics) was some sort of progressive hallmark.

                    25. Take the laws barring the teaching of evolution passed in some Southern states, it’s laughable to argue that opposition to evolution (which, btw, was used as a major support for eugenics) was some sort of progressive hallmark.

                      I agree that policies pushed by various groups 100 years ago do not map well to groups today.

                      To your specific example, evolution was seen as buttressing white supremacy and Jim Crow in the South 100 years ago – so I’m not sure that progressives really want to claim that one, although I am more than willing to give it to them.

                    26. Yes, and it gets even more complicated. Evolution was used to both support and attack the same things sometimes, like Jim Crow. Herbert Spencer and Jack London were big proponents of evolution, one thought it clearly supported laisezz-faire, the other socialism!

                    27. From reading what they wrote. The overriding motivation for prohibition was a religious one and the religious beliefs at the time were anti-market.

                    28. Eh, that’s more than a bit problematic. Many prohibitionists were Bryan followers, for example, but lots of them were pro-business Republicans who had no use for him. Remember Carnegie and Rockefeller supported Prohibition.

                    29. And catholics, who are the largest component of modern socons were mostly against it.

                    30. Progressivism at the time was both bipartisan and pro-business (although anti-market). Which is not surprising at all as it was a merger of pre-modern Christian morality with managerialism-taylorism-fordism.

                    31. Yes, but I still think you can trace a line from modern progressives, who are now anti-business through and through, to their modern counterparts, and all I am saying here is that the same can be done for modern social conservatives.

                      Modern social conservatives went through a ‘fusionism’ where they dropped their anti-capitalism, but they’ve kept throughout their belief in using state power to enforce what they see as traditional morality.

                    32. Yes, but I still think you can trace a line from modern progressives, who are now anti-business through and through, to their modern counterparts, and all I am saying here is that the same can be done for modern social conservatives.

                      Meh, the deck has been shuffled too many times to trace a direct lineage from groups today to groups then. Although I do agree that their is an ideological heritage for both progressives and so cons that stretches back to the social gospel movement of the late 19th century (and earlier). However, that heritage is stronger among progressives with SoCons primarily being an relatively recent and fading ad hoc opposition to the progressive movement.

                    33. Modern social conservatives went through a ‘fusionism’ where they dropped their anti-capitalism, but they’ve kept throughout their belief in using state power to enforce what they see as traditional morality.

                      I disagree.

                      Some of traditional morality of Christians has been completely abandoned by modern SoCons. The prohibition on interest and the sanctity of Sunday as prime examples. Others, like opposition to divorce, has been effectively abandoned. Other areas are held as private morality without mainstream support for using the state to enforce, such as opposition to alcohol consumption, gambling, pornography, support for charity, chastity etc.

                      Really, the SoCon movement is entirely a losing rearguard action, which has been only been successful in dealing the erosion of their concerns. And a shrinking one at that.

                      That’s why I find your obsession with them so baffling. You might as well be railing against the anti-libertarian tendencies of moonies or shakers.

                    34. Should be – …only been successful in delaying the erosion of their concerns….

                    35. “Some of traditional morality of Christians has been completely abandoned by modern SoCons.”

                      This is answered by your admission that movements today can share a heritage and general philosophy with older groups while having abandoned certain specific stands and positions. Socons don’t fight to ban the sale of DH Lawrence anymore, but they do fight to ban the sell of Hustler.

                      “That’s why I find your obsession with them so baffling. You might as well be railing against the anti-libertarian tendencies of moonies or shakers.”

                      I’ve said this many times: I live in South Carolina. I assure you that social conservatives here make far, far more policy, much of it quite restrictive of traditional libertarian values, than progressives, who are few and far between, do. That’s true for more than a few states.

                    36. So you think that modern SoCons favor alcohol prohibition?

                    37. No more so than modern progressives favor eugenics, no.

                    38. My point is that of course movements take certain stands and lose on them and abandon them. That doesn’t mean their philosophical descendants did not take those stands.

                      Religious conservatives fought for some different things in 1900 than they did in 1960 than they do today.

                    39. Sure, but the word “SoCons” has a particular meaning in US politics which is broader than the narrow preferences of hard core religious people.

                    40. “but the word “SoCons” has a particular meaning in US politics”

                      One commonly connected to past movements.
                      See here as one indicator of this:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..ted_States

                    41. That wiki article is incredibly weak and beneath you.

                    42. I only site it because wiki is a popular website and we are talking about what the common understanding of the term ‘social conservative’ is. I think most people who hear and use the term would not restrict it to the specific religious right movements of the 1970’s on, but to religious conservative movements more generally.

                    43. I think that you are incorrect. Although I will concede the point in so far as you are using it as a non specific designation. However, referring to SoCons as a contemporary political movement is not doing so.

                      Similarly, if I referred repeatedly to Conservatives in political discussions people would have some idea of whom I was referring to. It would be disingenuous of me to later refine the my sense of using the word to include anyone resistant to change even though that definition is also technically correct.

                    44. I think if you referred to conservatives in political discussion today people would not think you were limiting yourself to, say, various movements that sprung from the Goldwater campaign. Movements we deal with today have antecedents. Social conservatives today and social conservatives yesterday both push(ed) for using state power to restrict consensual behavior between adults that violates their traditional, religious morality. That traditional religious morality changes its focus and prohibitions over generations does not undercut that commonality.

                    45. Progressives embrace of abortion is de facto soft eugenics.

                    46. That’s both pedantic and weaselly.

                    47. Really, Where’s the disparate impact?

                    48. I think it’s pedantic and weaselly because you’ve already conceded that groups today often fight different battles and change positions from their progenitors years ago. Even if I were to accept that progressive support for abortion is, to them, ‘de facto soft eugenics’ (notice the qualifiers you yourself feel the need to put in there) we’ve already crossed the bridge in question in this discussion.

                    49. Meh,

                      Saying that all positions do not map from one era to another does not mean that non of them do.

                      And as progressives themselves are fond of pointing out, wealthy white progressives have low rates of abortion. That they turn around and oppose any restrictions on abortions for poor people and want the government to pay for such calls into question their motivations. And privately I have heard them express vary racist attitudes about the lower classes and their propensity for breeding.

                      YMMV

                    50. I’ve yet to meet one that doesn’t oppose restrictions on abortions for the wealthy as much as the poor. Disparate impact theory is a pretty smelly theory when liberals apply it and it smells similarly in attempts like this to apply it to them.

              2. Why, you’re a regular Knight of Columbus today Eddie.

  16. Is it too early to start drinking?

    1. I started about halfway through the Dalmia thread.

      1. Because my wife is cooking up blue crabs and making a spicy-sour papaya salad, while I’m going to cook up some Thai steamed mussels, we’re drinking a lot of these. They taste a lot better as imports than as domestics, for whatever reason.

        What’s on your agenda?

        1. More cider. It just feels right today.

          1. 5%? Do you have sand in your vagina?

            1. This from a “man” drinking cider?

              1. 8% Cider. 8. Uh oh.

  17. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  18. Slightly On Topic: I met the two most patient cops ever last night/this morning.

    Long story short, domestic disturbance with my room mate and his wife. I had to fight with him to break up a suicide attempt. Cops arrive because wife called them. They don’t shoot/tazer/beat/arrest anybody. They actually talked him down and then let me voluntarily take him to the hospital to get him a psych eval.

    My friend is alive after a confrontation with the police, and I am just the most goddamn grateful person alive.

    1. I think you left out the part where you’re a white guy.

      1. Well. . .yeah? I did say slightly on topic.

  19. http://news.yahoo.com/suspende…..00473.html

    Please tell me this was covered already

    Suspended St. Louis Police Officer: “I’m Into Diversity, I Kill Everybody”

    1. I hadn’t heard that, which, after reading the yahoo blurb, surprises me because it’s like a 60 mph hanging slider for the left handed batting media.

    2. That’s a hilarious line, btw. I’m so stealing it.

  20. Conservative Catholic Magazine Explains Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives (Traditionalists)

    “So the progressive view makes care, fairness, and liberty seem the right basic standards, with “care” understood from the standpoint of the concerns of the person cared for. Authority, loyalty, and sanctity interfere with people doing and getting what they want, so on such a view they make no sense as standards. They seem dangerous, since they give an advantage to those in charge of the system, who in the absence of a higher good shared with others can be expected to use the advantage for their private ends. So it’s not surprising that “question authority” has been an axiom for progressives, rebellion a virtue, and transgression a desirable form of liberation.

    In contrast, traditionalists view society and morality as natural rather than constructed. Since man is naturally social, society and morality are necessary to the world he inhabits and needed to make him what he truly is. That world is considered good in itself as well as productive of good, and to act socially and morally is to realize one’s own nature by participating in it. So the loyalty and authority that create a social world and make us part of it are natural to man and necessary for a good life.”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/…..tionalists

    1. Shocking!

    2. Yes, Catholic magazine fails to recognize progressivism as rival religion.

      Oh and

      Authority, loyalty, and sanctity interfere with people doing and getting what they want, so on such a view they make no sense as standards.

      The science is settled by 97% if scientists agreeing you knuckle dragging teabagger.

      1. “Catholic magazine fails to recognize progressivism as rival religion.”

        So VG is at least a bit swifter than Eddie, good to know.

      2. “…Catholic magazine fails to recognize progressivism as rival religion.”

        I didn’t see where they denied it.

        1. Eddie, the point is that they point to progressives refusing to be controlled by authority as a bad thing. This helps explain VG’s climate change argument from authority line.

        2. Maybe they don’t. I didn’t read the link, just the part that TorqBo quoted. Which seriously misreads the progressive movement, although it is a fair description of some liberal, but I digress. Progressivism is all about mindlessly following authority, intertribal loyalty and respecting the sanctity of ideals. It’s just that all three vectors are fundamentally different for progressives than they are for Catholics.

          Further, at this point, progressivism has been culturally dominant in the US for a century or more. So it is not even accurate to say that they are anti-traditionalists. Again, they are extremely defensive of their traditions, refusing to even consider changing things like the post office, public education, progressive taxation etc.

          1. I might add that their sense of sanctity could be said to be found in their hagiographic views of modern liberal saints such as MLK, JFK, RFK, FDR…

            1. I agree.

              Including people Margaret Sanger – I seem to recall Nancy Piglosi recently saying that abortion was a sacred rite or some such thing.

              1. The Crisis article appears to acknowledge your points, in a part Bo didn’t quote:

                “…progressives, who tend toward that outlook, don’t understand formal cause and purity. The idea simply makes no sense to them except as a childish “eww, gross” sort of thing. (It’s worth noting, however, that they aren’t consistent on the point. They are likely, for example, to consider inclusiveness a sacred cause, Matthew Shepard a holy martyr, racists, sexists, and homophobes unclean and disgusting, and so on.)”

                1. And while far be it from me to argue from authority, the Crisis article is a riff on the research of Jonathan Haidt (who’s been profiled in Reason and even spoke at the prestigious Museum of Sex), who made the interesting finding that, while conservative and moderates can understand the prog perspective, progs can’t understand the conservative perspective (preferring to compensate by attacks on the “swiftness” of their opponents, etc.).

                  Haidt explained this phenomenon by claiming that progs analyze the world through only three axes – “care, fairness, and liberty,” while conservatives recognize a great deal more complexity and nuance, viewing the world through *six* axes. Their six-dimensional world includes not only care, fairness, and liberty, but also authority, loyalty, and sanctity.

                  It’s hard for a six-dimensional person to explain things to a person who only operates in three dimensions, which explains why it’s tough to get through to Bo.

                  1. I wonder if it would make Bo mad to find out that you’re actually a lawyer, while he’s just pretending to be.

                    1. I was, I’ve moved on.

                    2. (inactive status)

                    3. I’ve never pretended to be a lawyer Playa, I’m pretty open about being in law school (though this time next year…). But accuracy is not really your strong suit if I recall.

                    4. I’ve never pretended to be a lawyer Playa,

                      Then you need to drop the “Esq.” postehaste, you poseur.

                  2. It’s interesting to watch Eddie stumble, unaware, eventually to the point.

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..ibertarian

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.